Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (136622)	4/15/2010 6:56:20 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 542970

Or getting a good legal assistant who will translate the jargon into English, and making you aware of the relevant precedents and the opposing POVs/arguments. Good point. The argument that says becoming a professional in any field is being socialized into it is more about learning the language than acquiring a point of view. Any profession has multiple points of view but, roughly speaking, one language.

To: Sam who wrote (136622)	4/15/2010 9:51:33 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542970

One has to lead the clerks (tell them what to research, what questions you want answered, what arguments you want refuted, etc.) who are mostly recent top law school grads--brillant, but without seasoning or history. Thats who the Justices are (mostly)--seasoned legal brillance. Additionally, it would soon come to light if the clerks were leading the Justice with the consequential fall out. Educated lay people can read the opinions and undertand a lot of what is being said (not particularly though if it is about contract or property rights, equitable relief, allocation of risk, or conflict of law), but usually they do not understand the process and how the reasoning was derived. Why do you think we've never had a non-lawyer SC Justice?